6 ms·

The DNC will learn nothing from this just as they learned nothing in 2016. They will move further rightward and will lose again.

pineaux 2y ago
This true. They will keep playing this stupid game. Thinking they are on the right side of history, which might be true, or it might not be true; but in the end, the right side of history is decided by the winners. And their current strategy is to alienate as many voters as possible by powering through on issues nobody cares about and acting as if there are no real issues left to fix.
tomjen3 2y ago
This is interesting as others have asserted that they lost because they were still too leftists. What data would settle this?
- cowboyscott 2y ago
  An election.
- JamesBarney 2y ago
  Look at senate and governor candidates that over performed and underperformed vs Kamala in their state. People have studied it for years and the basic finding is the classic one. Moving to the center wins you votes. You'll find that moderate/centrist dems over perform and leftist dems underperform. They've studied this. And the cause is is the following. Yes you get your base to turn out more. But extremism motivates their base even more than your own, and switched vote from an independent is twice as impactful as an extra vote. A simple example is you get one more of your base to turn out. You lose an independent, and you get 2 of their base to turn out. And end up down 3 votes.
  - martindbp 2y ago
    Hotelling's law should apply, no?
  - itsmek 2y ago
    This sounds plausible to me. Can you please link to some of these studies you mention?
    - JamesBarney 2y ago
      https://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_Thompson_Base_Turnout.pdf https://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_Thompson_Base_Turnou... Here's the study on turnout. And basically comes to the conclusion extremists motivate the opposing party base more than their own. Here are a couple of journal articles. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-happens-when-extremists-win-primaries/ECAC69648AE0DF91D93103E18342B9D2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s... https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/poq/nfae041/7833184 https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10... Note: There is small minority that show that this is effect shrinking with time. My personal belief for why this is happening is basically voters are judging individual politicians more by the moderation/extremeness of the party's positions and less by the politicians personal beliefs.
  - matthewfcarlson 2y ago
    Part of the problem is that our primaries are weird. Primary voters tend to be more extreme (left and right) and when moderates show up to vote in the election, they're upset there's no moderate choice. I was talking to some colleagues from Australia and not voting is a fine. Makes primaries much more representative of the actual election when you get everyone to vote.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      There are no primaries in Australia.
    - tenacious_tuna 2y ago
      I've had the thought that the US primary system prevents any meaningful application of Ranked Choice, or other alternative methods. Currently there's no other proximate-choice candidates that make it to the general election; i.e., the case where Kamala and Bernie and Trump are on the General Election ballot can't happen in most places right now, which narrows the choice field significantly.
  - xnx 2y ago
    > Moving to the center wins you votes. I'm confused. No one moved further from the center than Trump and it worked fantastically for hm.
    - FergusArgyll 2y ago
      I think people mistake his radical-styled rhetoric for radical policies Trump is one of the most moderate Republicans on most social issues (abortion, lgb, criminal justice etc.) He is the most moderate on entitlements (constantly promises to not cut medicare, medicaid and social security) contrary to every Republican campaign in the past (remember Paul Ryan?) He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk, not a 60's style pacifist) I could go on but I think the important point is; every point he wants to make, he makes in the loudest most wild way possible and people who aren't disposed to vote for him anyway see that as "radical". The correct word IMO is "crazy" or "wild". Voters who are in the center or can swing either way see him as promising fairly conventional things but in a crazy tone. Maybe tone doesn't matter as much to them
      - xnx 2y ago
        I agree that there's a huge difference between the rhetoric and policies. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around people viewing him as both a "straight talker" and someone who's "just jokin'". There's also huge variability about his personal policy whims he may lose interest in, and those in power around him with strong and motivated agendas.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk) Which is hogwash, because at the time Trump went along with the Iraq war just like everybody else, of course: In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq. "Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the#.kyoqgyZVmX https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002... So actually, um yeah, he was a "Cheney/Bush war hawk" just like the rest of them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- clcaev 2y ago
  A linear model (liberal vs conservative) is not great. Consider a planar model with two dimensions: social and economic policy. Trump combined conservative social policy with populist economic policy. Harris promoted liberal social policy. However, in her last town hall, framed herself as a "pragmatic capitalist" (her emphasis). This is a continuation of Democratic rightward shift, the Neoliberal compromise, that was crystallized by Clinton with NAFTA in the 90s. In this election, like 2000, the US public had to choose: a liberal social policy -or- a populist economic policy. What was not on the ballot: liberal social policy with populist economic policy.
adventured 2y ago
The problem with the left is they're now completely out of touch with the bottom 75%, which is what the massive Hispanic vote swing should be throwing alarms for. The left is filled with richer, coastal elites (top 25%); and impoverished minorities in blue cities that vote overwhelmingly left traditionally. On what planet does that recipe work out over time? The left became a gross contradiction. It should be for the masses, it should be primarily focused on the working class. All those elitist Hollywood endorsements are just a big obnoxious joke, they repel the average person and amplify the point that the left is out of touch.
- zusammen 2y ago
  The Democratic Party keeps moving left on cultural issues and right on economic issues, when the world (not just the US) is starting to move in the opposite direction. These things aren’t actually either/or, but when you pontificate on gender-affirming care in a country where half the population can’t afford just regular healthcare because of high deductibles… the feeling people get is exactly what you expressed.
  - mtswish 2y ago
    In what world is the Democratic party moving to the right on economic issues? 1. Tax breaks for first time home buyers 2. Tax breaks for families with a new born 3. Pondering an unrealized capital gains tax > pontificate on gender-affirming care This is such a hackneyed point and it surprises me that this is something anyone considers. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Trans issues should not be difficult to 'pontificate' on. There is gender affirming health care for trans individuals, Democrats broadly support those individuals having access to that care. Democrats are also the party that is aggressive on healthcare and supporting government programs for reducing healthcare costs. In all seriousness, do trans issues actually impact your day to day in any way? Trans people seem to live rent free in people's minds and I only ever hear about it in a political scenario. It seems like the most manufactured issue aside from immigration in recent memory.
    - astroid 2y ago
anon291 2y ago
[flagged]
- peppers-ghost 2y ago
  Fascism is right wing
  - idunnoman1222 2y ago
    Quid pro quo
  - anon291 2y ago
    SO the democrats are far-right and the republicans are center-right in your book then?
  - speakfreely 2y ago
    The DNC has been successful in making fascism much more diverse.
  - nemo44x 2y ago
    I think they are referring to the anti-liberal authoritarian left wing that has gained a foothold not only in the DNC but into the mainstream culture in certain ways. But "left-wing fascism" is a thing, or at least and idea, that has been around for awhile. Some call it "red fascism" and is in reference to left wing ideologies that are far from the center. It sort of invokes "horseshoe theory" that says left and right get pretty similar the further they get from the center.
- jedberg 2y ago
  > They've prosecuted their opposition Because their opposition committed multiple crimes.
  - anon291 2y ago
    According to new legal theories that have never been used before and have been singularly applied to Donald Trump
nosequel 2y ago
The DNC has some serious soul-searching to do. If they didn't figure out that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, I doubt they will learn that the US voter didn't like getting lied to about Biden's mental fitness and then just inserting someone we never voted on.
- autoexec 2y ago
  I think they knew full well that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, and they just didn't care. They believed that they could shove Hilary down our throats and actively colluded with her campaign to undermine Sanders. When people objected they fought to defend the position that they aren't required to hold a fair primary election. I doubt they'll learn anything from this and that they'll never give up the ability to make backroom deals then force their chosen candidate regardless of how democrats feel about them.
  - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
    I think you hit the nail on the head here. The general "air" about the democratic party seems to be that they know what's best for you, so shut up and vote blue so that we can "save democracy" (by the people who inserted a candidate that no one voted for). Regardless of policy, which I won't get into here, we have to acknowledge that treating adults like children isn't a rock-solid battle strategy.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary. That's not some big bad Democrat party thing. That's literally how Democratic primary voters voted in 2016. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is completely opposite reality.
    - booleandilemma 2y ago
      The Democrats absolutely shafted Bernie. That's obvious, and it's a shame. Bernie is interesting in a way Kamala and Hillary are not.

pineaux 2y ago

This true. They will keep playing this stupid game. Thinking they are on the right side of history, which might be true, or it might not be true; but in the end, the right side of history is decided by the winners. And their current strategy is to alienate as many voters as possible by powering through on issues nobody cares about and acting as if there are no real issues left to fix.

tomjen3 2y ago

This is interesting as others have asserted that they lost because they were still too leftists. What data would settle this?

cowboyscott 2y ago
An election.
JamesBarney 2y ago
Look at senate and governor candidates that over performed and underperformed vs Kamala in their state. People have studied it for years and the basic finding is the classic one. Moving to the center wins you votes. You'll find that moderate/centrist dems over perform and leftist dems underperform. They've studied this. And the cause is is the following. Yes you get your base to turn out more. But extremism motivates their base even more than your own, and switched vote from an independent is twice as impactful as an extra vote. A simple example is you get one more of your base to turn out. You lose an independent, and you get 2 of their base to turn out. And end up down 3 votes.
- martindbp 2y ago
  Hotelling's law should apply, no?
- itsmek 2y ago
  This sounds plausible to me. Can you please link to some of these studies you mention?
  - JamesBarney 2y ago
    https://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_Thompson_Base_Turnout.pdf https://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_Thompson_Base_Turnou... Here's the study on turnout. And basically comes to the conclusion extremists motivate the opposing party base more than their own. Here are a couple of journal articles. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-happens-when-extremists-win-primaries/ECAC69648AE0DF91D93103E18342B9D2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s... https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/poq/nfae041/7833184 https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10... Note: There is small minority that show that this is effect shrinking with time. My personal belief for why this is happening is basically voters are judging individual politicians more by the moderation/extremeness of the party's positions and less by the politicians personal beliefs.
- matthewfcarlson 2y ago
  Part of the problem is that our primaries are weird. Primary voters tend to be more extreme (left and right) and when moderates show up to vote in the election, they're upset there's no moderate choice. I was talking to some colleagues from Australia and not voting is a fine. Makes primaries much more representative of the actual election when you get everyone to vote.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    There are no primaries in Australia.
  - tenacious_tuna 2y ago
    I've had the thought that the US primary system prevents any meaningful application of Ranked Choice, or other alternative methods. Currently there's no other proximate-choice candidates that make it to the general election; i.e., the case where Kamala and Bernie and Trump are on the General Election ballot can't happen in most places right now, which narrows the choice field significantly.
- xnx 2y ago
  > Moving to the center wins you votes. I'm confused. No one moved further from the center than Trump and it worked fantastically for hm.
  - FergusArgyll 2y ago
    I think people mistake his radical-styled rhetoric for radical policies Trump is one of the most moderate Republicans on most social issues (abortion, lgb, criminal justice etc.) He is the most moderate on entitlements (constantly promises to not cut medicare, medicaid and social security) contrary to every Republican campaign in the past (remember Paul Ryan?) He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk, not a 60's style pacifist) I could go on but I think the important point is; every point he wants to make, he makes in the loudest most wild way possible and people who aren't disposed to vote for him anyway see that as "radical". The correct word IMO is "crazy" or "wild". Voters who are in the center or can swing either way see him as promising fairly conventional things but in a crazy tone. Maybe tone doesn't matter as much to them
    - xnx 2y ago
      I agree that there's a huge difference between the rhetoric and policies. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around people viewing him as both a "straight talker" and someone who's "just jokin'". There's also huge variability about his personal policy whims he may lose interest in, and those in power around him with strong and motivated agendas.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk) Which is hogwash, because at the time Trump went along with the Iraq war just like everybody else, of course: In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq. "Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the#.kyoqgyZVmX https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002... So actually, um yeah, he was a "Cheney/Bush war hawk" just like the rest of them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
clcaev 2y ago
A linear model (liberal vs conservative) is not great. Consider a planar model with two dimensions: social and economic policy. Trump combined conservative social policy with populist economic policy. Harris promoted liberal social policy. However, in her last town hall, framed herself as a "pragmatic capitalist" (her emphasis). This is a continuation of Democratic rightward shift, the Neoliberal compromise, that was crystallized by Clinton with NAFTA in the 90s. In this election, like 2000, the US public had to choose: a liberal social policy -or- a populist economic policy. What was not on the ballot: liberal social policy with populist economic policy.

adventured 2y ago

The problem with the left is they're now completely out of touch with the bottom 75%, which is what the massive Hispanic vote swing should be throwing alarms for. The left is filled with richer, coastal elites (top 25%); and impoverished minorities in blue cities that vote overwhelmingly left traditionally. On what planet does that recipe work out over time? The left became a gross contradiction. It should be for the masses, it should be primarily focused on the working class. All those elitist Hollywood endorsements are just a big obnoxious joke, they repel the average person and amplify the point that the left is out of touch.

zusammen 2y ago
The Democratic Party keeps moving left on cultural issues and right on economic issues, when the world (not just the US) is starting to move in the opposite direction. These things aren’t actually either/or, but when you pontificate on gender-affirming care in a country where half the population can’t afford just regular healthcare because of high deductibles… the feeling people get is exactly what you expressed.
- mtswish 2y ago
  In what world is the Democratic party moving to the right on economic issues? 1. Tax breaks for first time home buyers 2. Tax breaks for families with a new born 3. Pondering an unrealized capital gains tax > pontificate on gender-affirming care This is such a hackneyed point and it surprises me that this is something anyone considers. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Trans issues should not be difficult to 'pontificate' on. There is gender affirming health care for trans individuals, Democrats broadly support those individuals having access to that care. Democrats are also the party that is aggressive on healthcare and supporting government programs for reducing healthcare costs. In all seriousness, do trans issues actually impact your day to day in any way? Trans people seem to live rent free in people's minds and I only ever hear about it in a political scenario. It seems like the most manufactured issue aside from immigration in recent memory.
  - astroid 2y ago

anon291 2y ago

[flagged]

peppers-ghost 2y ago
Fascism is right wing
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  Quid pro quo
- anon291 2y ago
  SO the democrats are far-right and the republicans are center-right in your book then?
- speakfreely 2y ago
  The DNC has been successful in making fascism much more diverse.
- nemo44x 2y ago
  I think they are referring to the anti-liberal authoritarian left wing that has gained a foothold not only in the DNC but into the mainstream culture in certain ways. But "left-wing fascism" is a thing, or at least and idea, that has been around for awhile. Some call it "red fascism" and is in reference to left wing ideologies that are far from the center. It sort of invokes "horseshoe theory" that says left and right get pretty similar the further they get from the center.
jedberg 2y ago
> They've prosecuted their opposition Because their opposition committed multiple crimes.
- anon291 2y ago
  According to new legal theories that have never been used before and have been singularly applied to Donald Trump

nosequel 2y ago

The DNC has some serious soul-searching to do. If they didn't figure out that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, I doubt they will learn that the US voter didn't like getting lied to about Biden's mental fitness and then just inserting someone we never voted on.

autoexec 2y ago
I think they knew full well that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, and they just didn't care. They believed that they could shove Hilary down our throats and actively colluded with her campaign to undermine Sanders. When people objected they fought to defend the position that they aren't required to hold a fair primary election. I doubt they'll learn anything from this and that they'll never give up the ability to make backroom deals then force their chosen candidate regardless of how democrats feel about them.
- adamtaylor_13 2y ago
  I think you hit the nail on the head here. The general "air" about the democratic party seems to be that they know what's best for you, so shut up and vote blue so that we can "save democracy" (by the people who inserted a candidate that no one voted for). Regardless of policy, which I won't get into here, we have to acknowledge that treating adults like children isn't a rock-solid battle strategy.
- daveguy 2y ago
  Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary. That's not some big bad Democrat party thing. That's literally how Democratic primary voters voted in 2016. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is completely opposite reality.
  - booleandilemma 2y ago
    The Democrats absolutely shafted Bernie. That's obvious, and it's a shame. Bernie is interesting in a way Kamala and Hillary are not.